Conservatives buck Bush's war strategy

WASHINGTON -- "This Iraq war has lasted longer than World War II, it has claimed more American lives than the attacks of 9-11, and it has cost more money than the Vietnam War."

Another anti-war rant from the Democrats?

Nope. Try Rep. Ric Keller, Orlando Republican.

And he's not alone in conservative circles.

Keller's recent criticism came in response to President Bush's plan to deploy reinforcements overseas. "Sending 20,000 additional troops in the cross hairs of an Iraqi civil war is not the right approach," Keller said.

Another conservative Central Florida congressman, Tom Feeney, echoed that view. The Oviedo Republican, an ardent supporter of the Iraq invasion in 2003, said opposition to the latest troop surge has emboldened Republican lawmakers to question Bush's overall war strategy.

Feeney, Keller and other conservatives are part of a new and growing audience the president will have to convince when he talks about Iraq in his State of the Union speech Tuesday.

"I believe this marks the first time that conservatives are directly challenging the president's conduct of the war, and they are doing so vocally," said Bill Lauderback, executive vice president of American Conservative Union.

Lauderback said "a lot of us conservatives believed that going into Iraq in the first place was not a prudent action." But with more than 3,000 dead American soldiers and a lack of progress, he said, many recognize they can "no longer remain silent."

Keller, Lauderback and others said a big problem rests with the Iraqi government's inability to organize and handle ongoing sectarian violence. More than 34,000 Iraqis were killed in 2006, according to recent figures from the United Nations.

"I feel that we have been burnt so many times by this Iraqi government," Keller said. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other leaders have been "jerking us around for four years."

Similar frustrations

Other conservative members of Congress, such as Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., have voiced similar frustrations. Brownback, a presidential contender, said he opposes a troop surge on the same grounds as Keller's.

"The United States cares more about a peaceful Iraq than the Iraqis do. If that is the case, it is difficult to understand why more U.S. troops would make a difference," Brownback said.

Such a political sea change likely was sparked by November's election, in which the GOP lost control of the House and Senate, said Brian Darling of the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"Republicans don't want to walk into the next election and have this whole situation replay again," Darling said.

Keller said his change of mind wasn't tied to the election but was a decision he made after "a lot of soul-searching."

His anti-war comments, he said, set off a "firestorm" from constituents. But between the "mean-spirited e-mails and phone calls," the four-term congressman said, he has heard similar skepticism from other conservative lawmakers.

Feeney said he always has been against "nation-building" in Iraq and is worried more troops would support the unworkable goal of establishing a democracy in that country. He would rather see U.S. soldiers secure the Iraqi border and train Iraqi troops.

"I flinched every time the president said we would have a functioning democracy," Feeney said, noting the troop-surge debate allowed conservatives an opportunity to pitch new options on Iraq.

`Safe route'

"The fact is that Americans have traditionally been patient for a short period of time, but patience eventually ends without a very defined, specific set of goals," he said.

At this point, with the country clearly frustrated with events in Iraq, such a viewpoint carries little political risk, said Aubrey Jewett, a political scientist at the University of Central Florida.

"Politically speaking, Republicans that go against the president on this [troop surge] are going the safe route," Jewett said.

"There could be some voters that get upset, and perhaps someone tries to make hay of this in a GOP primary. I just don't see them getting much traction," he said.

Still, pessimism from Republican conservatives represents a tough hurdle for a president already fighting Democrats in Congress.

Senate Democrats, including notables such as Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, want to impose strict limits on how many U.S. troops should be stationed in Iraq.

Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of senators is pushing a nonbinding resolution that opposes the troop surge and encourages the U.S. to court international partners. The statement, however, does little to actually change how the war is run.

Congress is somewhat limited in what it can do about Iraq policy. But it does have the power to sever funding for the engagement, a possibility being raised more often on Capital Hill.

At the same time, growing doubt from conservatives could help embolden anti-war activists, who are set to march in Washington later this month.

Jodie Evans, co-founder of CODEPINK, a women-run anti-war group, said Bush's push for more troops could give on-the-fence politicians the cover to shift toward a more anti-war stance.

"People were ready to make the movement, but they didn't know how," she said. "Because of what [Bush] did, it allowed people to move over gracefully."